Cost Armata vs Leopard 2 a7v

[Roman]

Hello. I am playing a PBEM game Russia vs Germany. And I have seen that the Leopard 2 at 7v is a very strong tank. The best opponent is the Armata t14. I ask why the Armata costs 539 and the Leopard 2 to 7v costs 438? The Armata has ATGM and the leopard does not. But the Leopard has a lot more armor.
I did a light internet search on cost and maybe the Leopard is more expensive. What will reality be like?

[DRG]

Game "cost" has NOTHING to do with a units cost in RL. It is all determined by the cost calculator and every unit is "costed" using the same formula.

there are a host of factors that can change that, one being unit EXP and MOR but that is only one and having ATGM IS another

EDIT

If the 6 Invar-m are removed and 6 sabot put in their place the baseline cost of the T14 drops from 539 to 456 points which is still more than a 2A7V but by a much smaller amount so the ATGMs are the main reason for the difference---( and why Merkava 5 Barak's with 12 LAHAT are 743 points each)- but the Russian 125mm 2A82-1M gun also pushes the cost up a bit. That weapon is new base on recent info. That gun is only used by the Armata and it has a muzzle velocity reported to be on average 400 m/s (1300 f/s) faster than the rounds used by a T-90 for example. That's a huge jump in velocity and gives the gun a sabot pen of (allegedly) 1,000 mm at 0° at 2000m (allegedly) and therefore has a considerably higher sabot pen in the game

This does not make them invincible as testing has shown but if it hits you, it will usually hurt, but, that gun only adds 16 points to the cost of an Armata with ATGM so the 6 Invars are the main reason for the cost difference

We really won't know how effective the new gun will actually be for probably a decade.....if then, unless there is a tank battle soon that proves something one way or the other. The added velocity is not going to increase barrel life though.

[Mobhack]

ATGM tend to be expensive items. Especially modern ones with added "special sauce" features like multiple charge warheads or top attack.

Me, if an OOB has a choice between an MBT with and without those cannon-launched ATGM then I usually plonk for the ones with (say) 6 more cannon rounds as they are far cheaper. Even taking the Close sSupport version if there is a C/S tank variant.

I prefer to have ATGM on a separate platform doing overwatch in a support vehicle type manner. If I have to use the cannon launched ATGM variants of MBT then I usually switch that weapon line off so I can manually fire the things at what I determine is a valid target - not letting them pop them off in random opfire on some little tin can that wanders into LOS.

So, personally not a fan of MBT - or even light tanks - like say the M60A2 "Starship" and the M551 Sheridan in the 70s with ATGM as a primary or secondary AT round. If I could have those 2 with all HEAT ammo (and HE too - bigger bangs are better bangs!!) then I would be a happy bunny

[Aeraaa]

Worst is the Turkish M60T with LAHAT. 502 cost for a tank that can be killed by a M48A5 frontally.

And yeah, I'm not a fan of ATGM equipped tanks for this reason.

[Suhiir]

They have their uses, but I generally agree.

[Roman]

What I can say based on my game that I'm a few turns into is that I also prefer not to have atgms on the Armata because they don't even tickle those Leopards. The cannon is effective.
But you would have to change the oob and you would not be able to use the change in pbem